Forum:Collapsible family navboxes

Archived discussion

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Collapsible family navboxes | Post

Issue is not resolved

It was resolved that the family navboxes should be standardized. However, there was no resolution regarding the format that this standardization would follow. Users are encouraged to boldly act to create a standard format

Hiya,

I've been thinking if we can replace the family navboxes into a collapsible one. If you don't know yet, most, if not all, family navboxes are in wikitext complete with markup and everything, which can be a huge eyesore and annoying to edit.

I think what we can do is to replace the wikitext with {{Navbox}}, which not just make the navboxes collapsible, but also easier to edit as there are less markups to deal with. I made a basic example which you can see here. What do you think? EpicJoyBoy ^{(My talk page!)} 04:48, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

For sake of clarity, are you suggesting that we use {{Navbox}} to make family templates? So, instead of having {{Landgraab Family}} as it appears now, we would make it look like your example? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:26, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make it clear enough, but to answer your question, yes. I think using {{Navbox}} for family navboxes wouldn't just make it collapsible, but also make things more streamlined. It isn't fully fleshed out yet, but the example template is well, an example.

I'm not sure where the wikitext customization go into the template, though, but I'm quite sure the end result would be at least similar to what we're seeing now. EpicJoyBoy ^{(My talk page!)} 06:33, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

While its arguably not the best reason I do think we should keep them how they are now simply because that's how it is on every other wiki but there's no real issues other than changing some formatting or something if we do decide to do this. Disregard this, I checked and a similar system is used on Wikipedia, I don't really have any strong feelings on this either way. Also, while this isnt exactly related, I kinda think it may be a good idea to change the navboxes like the one LiR linked to some sort of standardised colour, probably the blue/white most other templates use or something. Regardless of what happens I do believe any of these changes could probably be automated with a bot, although I'm admittedly fairly rusty with AWB. ―ฬђ ^talk 08:57, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible if the family templates could just be removed entirely? Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:53, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove it entirely, IMO, but I think we should at least keep it for notable families or families spanning three generations or more. EpicJoyBoy ^{(My talk page!)} 03:12, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer if the navigation is removed entirely as well. I never really liked it anyway. But if we are to keep the navigation, I agree if all of the family navigation templates use the same base template so they're all consistent. I don't know if we should use Navbox for the base template though. It's basically used for most navigation templates. I'd like it better if family navigation template has a different style to distinguish it from general navigation templates. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 13:38, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

If we keep the navigation templates, I agree that they should all look the same. I think creating a new style of navigational template just for family navboxes is a little redundant, so I'd suggest we just keep using Navbox. As for deleting the navigation templates themselves, I'm undecided/leaning against deletion, as I think they do serve at least some purpose. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:44, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If it is decided that the navboxes shouldn't be deleted, then I support making a base family navigation template for consistency's sake. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 04:33, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Vote

There is no clear consensus here, and discussion has dried up. In the spirit of finding an answer, I am starting a vote. Note that this will be a three-way vote. The rules for this vote will be different. Please read through the voting guide and vote explanation before voting, and leave any comments about your vote or any questions in the Comments section. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:41, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Vote

This is a three-way ranked vote, to determine the outcome of this matter. The question at hand: Should we eliminate or standardize family navboxes?

• Option one - Eliminate family navboxes
• Option two - Standardize and keep family navboxes
• Option three - Maintain the status quo

Guide to voting: To vote, rank your preference for the three options above. Start with the option you most prefer, followed by the option you prefer second most, then the option you prefer least. For example, a user who primarily wants to keep the status quo, but would support standardizing the navboxes would rank their votes in the order "three, two, one."

How votes will be counted: At the end of voting (one week), each person's first ranked choice will be counted. If an option receives a majority of the votes, that option will be selected. If no option achieves a majority, the option receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. Those people whose first vote was towards the least-popular option will have their second choice counted instead.

Votes

---

• Option 2, Option 1, Option 3. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:43, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, Option 1, Option 3. DanPin • talk • contribs 17:48, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, Option 3, Option 1. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:14, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1, Option 2, Option 3. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 20:45, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, Option 1, Option 3. Beds ^{(talk - blog)} 20:58, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1, Option 2, Option 3. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:28, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, Option 1, Option 3. EpicJoyBoy ^{(My talk page!)} 08:26, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion

Due to the vote above, this discussion should now be geared towards standardizing the family navboxes. One idea to do this has already been proposed; using {{navbox}} as a base template for the family templates. If anyone has any other ideas for creating a different navbox design, feel free to suggest it now. Or, feel free to add any additional points you may have regarding family navboxes. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:50, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

---

Personally, I am in favor of using {{navbox}} as the base template. As I said above, I don't see the need to create a new template style just for these boxes. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:52, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

I think that basing them all off navbox would be the best but something else that I've been meaning to say: there's a bunch of navboxes for small families (i.e. ones with a married couple and a child, I know because I recall making a bunch of them way back when I joined) - perhaps we should do some sort of overview of all the navbox templates before making changes and get rid of the ones for these small families? ―ฬђ ^talk 09:25, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of using Navbox as the base template. There's also another thing I'm concerned. How do we organize the members of the family in the navbox? For nuclear families, usually the parents are on the first row while the children are on the second row. But how about extended families? We may be able to set the row by the generation, but then again, there are still some family trees that are complicated like the Curious family. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 11:22, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

A solution could be sorting the navbox families by game. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 20:29, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 19:06, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

The Curious family: We could theoretically sort all of the family members by the era in which they appear in. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 18:19, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

What I'm not too certain about is how we are going sort families by game/era. It might work on large families spanning many games, like the Goth family, but it won't work at all on smaller families spanning one or two games. The Curious family only appears in two games; The Sims 2 and 3, meaning if we sort the family by game, we'd end up with two rather large sections, which may or may not be a good thing.

IMO, we're better off sorting families by generation, as you can see here. Sorting families by generation is much closer compared to what we have right now (such as this and this) and doesn't look as awkward as sorting families by game. EpicJoyBoy ^{(My talk page!)} 19:29, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea, EpicJoyBoy. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 14:47, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘How about families with unclear generation levels, such as the Landgraabs? Or families with unclear relations, such as the Crumplebottom sisters in Moonlight Falls? I don't think it's applicable to several cross-series families. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:05, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the Landgraab family, they should really be set by the era they appear in. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 08:45, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Closing

This is a complex issue. The community supports keeping navboxes and standardizing their appearance, but as of yet there is no one agreed-upon standard. It may be best to move forward towards implementing a standard outside of a formal discussion, acting boldly to implement the consensus which was set indicating a support for standardization. If necessary, the issue can be revisited in a new forum thread. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk • blog • contribs} 05:02, January 11, 2015 (UTC)